Portland will not pursue any further legal efforts to keep panhandlers off street medians.

City councilors decided not to appeal a federal court ruling that struck down a city ordinance designed to ban the practice, said Jessica Grondin, Portland’s communications director, in a statement released Tuesday evening.

Portland's controversial ordinance prohibited people from standing on street medians to ask for money.

Although the ordinance – which initially banned standing on medians for any reason – was immediately challenged in court and never enforced, Tuesday’s announcement ends three years of debate among Portland city councilors, police officials, First Amendment rights advocates and the public over whether such a ban was needed or legal.

“While the City Council feels they have done everything they could to defend the city’s median strip ordinance to date, they have chosen to not pursue an appeal of the First Circuit ruling … to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Grondin said in the statement.

“The city will, however, remain focused and continue to review ways in which it can address this public safety issue since safety has always been, and continues to be paramount.”

Zachary Heiden, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, which helped argue the case, applauded the decision saying the city faced long odds of having the case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court decided two relevant free speech cases while the legal challenge of Portland’s ordinance was pending before the First Circuit court. Those cases directly affected Portland’s outcome.

“It was a very well-written, well-reasoned decision, and I don’t just say that because we won,” Heiden said of the First Circuit decision, handed down in February 2014.

OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS SAFETY

While acknowledging the legitimate safety issues posed by people standing close to passing traffic, panhandling aggressively or intentionally damaging passing cars, Heiden said all those activities could have been addressed through previously established laws.

“I think those are all important concerns that can be addressed without abridging anyone’s First Amendment rights,” Heiden said.

The city’s ordinance prohibited people from standing on street medians to ask for money, make political statements or for other reasons, but later clarified that the city would exempt people who place campaign signs or other placards on medians – which in part led the court to strike the law down.

By allowing campaign signs, the court wrote, Portland was favoring one type of speech over another. This violated a basic parameter established by the prior court decisions that allows restrictions on First Amendment rights only if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored and absolutely necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

BAN DRIVEN BY COMPLAINTS

City Councilor Kevin Donoghue, who first voted against the ban but then voted for it when it came back to the council, said Tuesday that he agrees with dropping the appeal.

“What I’ve come to conclude is that there is not a significant safety concern of people standing on median strips,” Donoghue said. “If there is a safety concern, it’s of people standing in the roadway.”

The ordinance was first proposed in 2012, but was rejected by city councilors. It was revived a year later after public pressure to revisit the issue. Portland Police Chief Michael Sauschuck also said the ban was needed, citing increased complaints about panhandlers over two years.

City councilors voted unanimously in August 2013 to enact the ordinance, but it was almost immediately challenged in court and suspended from going into effect until the legal challenge could be settled.

Here at MaineToday Media we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion.

To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use. Click here to flag and report a comment that violates our terms of use.

tet1953

Saw a couple in Saco today too.

Scott Harriman

They are also regularly in Freeport, Brunswick and Topsham.

Poverty seems to have really taken off after the latest financial crash.

knuckledragger

Many of these people aren’t even impoverished. They make a pretty good days pay from begging and don’t pay taxes on it or have to declare it for any assistance.

Scott Harriman

Source?

maineincrisis

Im your source.

maineincrisis

my uncle in Cleveland di this for decades with his Vietnam vet cardboard signs… he’d walk to the freeway offramp at 7 am collect about 100 a day until about noon then go drink it all away, stumble back to his parents house and repeat.

gadfly371

Just stop handing them $. Problem solved. I also think most medians can be removed without causing any safety issues.

Constitution First

You mean our 7th “Recovery Summer”, don’t you?

knuckledragger

Please site your source that they are impoverished.

Scott Harriman

Just a guess, admittedly.

maineman11111

when i go to Portland , i always giv them change.
that way they stay in portland and dont come to my community
.

smosh

they might be -from- your community.

maineman11111

would not give the panhandlers any money in my hood,
that way they stay in portland where they get change

BruceLIbby

Rip out medians end of issue.

knuckledragger

why not make the medians so as to not be possible to stand on. Such as guardrails or plant shrubs. So what happens if one of these people kleave the median to collect money? Are they not then J walking? WHy could they not then be ticketed for impeding traffic?

Birchwind

They just walk on and trample the shrubs. A guard rail for “safety” purposes might help.

Scott Harriman

Sounds like a convenient bench!

Scott Harriman

Spend our taxes to further impede poor people rather than help them?

Brilliant.

knuckledragger

Impede them from buying drugs or alcohol perhaps and we would be spending money on public safety .

i’m always right

hey scott–i personally witnessed a guy begging for change (for food of course) on portland streets and then walk into a bar a and buy the cheapest beer he could with a handful of change.. his favorite catch phrase when approaching people is “are you a good person, can you help me out”??? even the bartenders cringe when he walks in

Scott Harriman

That isn’t really relevant to my comment, but I’m sure some people do panhandle to feed their addictions. That’s one reason why giving them money may not be the best strategy.

Erik Vanderlieb

Nobody wants to see these people.They remind everyone of the reality that tens of millions of people are totally disenfranchised and without hope of making it in this society. That’s unpleasant for some people to see and they want “those people” gotten rid of.
Of course, they are mostly very polite; they know the truncheons, tasers, guns and dogs are ready should they stray. They don’t really harm anyone and their only crime is that of reproach directed at the rest of society. They also serve as a reminder that maybe 250 million Americans are just one paycheck, one accident, or one illness away from abject penury themselves. Is this a great country or what? Many people would love to see vagrancy laws brought back so these people could all be arrested and “put to work”.

Patrick

You obviously don’t get out much and believe the bleeding heart liberal lines that you put forth in your comment. Portsmouth and other communities don’t have this vagrant problem because they are not known as a handout city. By “disenfranchised” what you really mean are people living off the hard work of us taxpayers. Let’s keep enabling that life style and not push these folks to work.

Erik Vanderlieb

Patrick;
How about sticking to the subject and avoid trying to psychoanalyze me?
As it happens I do get out…A lot. I am very public and you may see me and not know it, but I’ll leave it at that.

Jakefromstatefarm

Why don’t you invite them to stay at your home then. If you feel the need to help them. They are rude, and disrespectful. They use the money to buy drugs.wake up and put down your coffee.

reed1v

Yeah, right. Like the guy who exposed himself to my 5 year old grand daughter. Most would slit your throat if given the chance.

i’m always right

then tell those scumbags to stop harrassing my wife while she is walking our 2 year old down the street..so yea, i would love to see “vagrancy laws” back

outofmanyone

Good job Erik. You hit the nail right on the head.

arealmainer

I didnt know that churches spent donations on booze & heroin…good to know.

gadfly371

You’re just adding to the problem.

Patrick

Stop giving these people money. Your taxes go to funding that provides food and shelter for these people. They want money for alcohol and cigarettes and drugs. Give them food they throw it away. They have a collection of signs near the Oxford Street shelter and the soup kitchen and these people pick one up and go to work. A person I know bought a median strip beggar some food from MacDonald’s. She handed it to him and drove off but noticed he immediately headed off to MacDonald’s. She followed him in and observed he went to the counter and demanded his money back because they got his order wrong. Don’t be a sucker folks. These people are players.

reed1v

Get rid of the medians. Plus put cams up where they exist. Lots of car damages, indecent exposures, and threats from those folks.

maineincrisis

The city of Portland has a responsibility to protect people from dangerous situations and this is a constant one. I’ve been nearly hit a few times because people in front of me stop to give them money and the guy behind me almost didn’t. Its a situation that does not need to exist. I suggest everyone lay on your horn every time to pass one of these people. If it is uncomfortable then people wont do it.

Scott Harriman

A rear-end collision is entirely the fault of the driver behind you.

knuckledragger

The pan handler would be what they call a contributing factor

Scott Harriman

So if I stop at a Stop sign and the person behind me does not, the Stop sign is a contributing factor? Does it need to be removed?

knuckledragger

It would be more apt to be the case that you would be stopped at a red light and then it turns green while you are giving the panhandler money causing someone to hit you or trying to go around you which by the way is against the motor vehicle code. It is called impeding traffic.

Scott Harriman

It’s also against the law to run into the back of someone in front of you…

Are you one of those people who lays on the horn the instant the light turns green?

knuckledragger

No but if I had to wait another cycle because of it I would be upset. What if an ambulance was trying to get someone to the ER and they were delayed?

Scott Harriman

I doubt that someone would block an emergency vehicle with lights and sirens on in order to give money to a panhandler.

maineincrisis

Regardless of fault it creates a dangerous situation that is not necessary… is my point.

maineincrisis

I saw a pedestrian walk out in front of an ambulance with lights on and when the driver honked at hi he flipped them off. There is no regard for emergency situations in this place.

anotheropinion

I disagree. If the person in front of you stops at a green light, they are at fault.

Scott Harriman

They may be committing a traffic violation by impeding traffic but that does not make them at fault if someone runs into them.

anotheropinion

Agreed, but if you are committing a violation and an accident is caused as a direct result, I believe you’ll be found at fault.

Scott Harriman

The key phrase being “as a direct result”. Simply stopping one’s vehicle does not directly result in a rear-end crash.

Running into the back of a stopped vehicle is the fault of the following driver, regardless of whether the driver in front stopped to give money to a panhandler or stopped to avoid running over a jaywalker.

maineincrisis

Put spikes on the medians like they do for birds on ledges.

Blanco_1

What would be interesting is if the PPH or a News team actually followed a few of these bums around the see where the money actually goes……..

i’m always right

not a bad idea… maybe that “Two on your side” news show can do it

maineincrisis

call fox they will.

gadfly371

Good point!

Cassie

If no one gives them money, they will eventually stop. Just roll up your windows, and say no. If you want to help, donate to a reputable soup kitchen or food bank.

Constitution First

For all that effort, they can work a job that doesn’t involve begging.
I work for my money, I pay my taxes, I donate to worthy causes, I don’t give to beggars.
Do the beggars pay taxes on that income? And income it is.

Scott Harriman

What if they have a criminal record or a handicap and nobody will hire them?

steveh18

that’s what service providers are for. To help people overcome those obstacles, not to give them sharpies to write their signs.

Scott Harriman

Unfortunately, we are seeing the result of years of policies that cut support to said providers while also increasing the number of disadvantaged people.

jbacus

Just another reason why Portland is such a pit.

Thistle

Self-righteous do-gooders are really just enablers for alcohol and drug addictions.

Police need to be ticketing drivers who stop when the light is green and obstruct traffic. It is not the panhandlers who are causing the safety issues.

maineincrisis

YES!!! we agree on this 100% That’s a first!

Miss Mary

It will take 1 person to be hit and killed by a vehicle and than you will see them coming out of the wood work asking why the city allowed them on the medians if they knew it was a safety hazard….

mike mallis

Ban people from having jobs that waste tax payers dollars.

markusinger

Since the city owns the medians, why not rent them out o the highest bidder?